Gita Gopinath is Professor of Economics at Harvard University. She is a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and a World Economic Forum Young Global Leader.

Tony Lantley: Like you, I first read the article focusing on the fall in the marginal corporate tax rate, which is more likely to be implemented than the border adjustment part. However, Fahri et al try to argue how the border adjustment would play out and what you describe in your comment is not how the border adjustment works.

For details, see for example http://taxfoundation.org/blog/house-gop-s-destination-based-cash-flow-tax-explained and to play with a calculator see here: https://ospc.shinyapps.io/border-adjustment-calculator/. Personally, I think capital flows (and therefoer the trade balance) will be affected and that we would not see a full currency adjustment. Also recall that some of these effects on the exchange rate get priced in before any change in the regime takes effect.

Please explain how this makes sense: If I read it right, the authors argue that a 20 percentage point reduction in the marginal corporate tax rate (from 35% to 15%) constitutes a "20% tax cut [which] will push the value of the dollar up by 20%". Could someone walk me through i) how changing the marginal tax rate for corporations by 20 percentage points while also changing the tax basis would amount to a "20% tax cut". ii) how a "20% tax cut" (presumably meaning a 20% reduction in tax revenue from corporate taxation) results in a 20% appreciation of the dollar.

Great question. It is the Border Adjustment Tax that drives the 20% $ appreciation, not the 20pp drop in Corporation Tax. Because import costs are excluded from a firm's tax base they become 20% more expensive (assuming the new 20% corporate tax rate) and export revenues are excluded from taxable income, making exports 20% less expensive. The assumption is that overseas buyers purchase more (now cheaper) US product and domestic buyers purchase less (now expensive) overseas product. This results in greater demand for $s to buy US Exports, and lower supply of $s sold to fund overseas imports. This arbitrage continues until the price differential created by the border adjustment closes, logically with a 20% appreciation of the $. The reality is complicated by a persistent trade deficit (see Puglisi comment below) and only ~50% of world currencies floating. Does this model also require an assumption of perfect competition (why should exporters not just capture the tax windfall by not reducing prices) and does the model assume that exports and imports have same elasticity of supply/demand? (If someone could reference another source to answer these questions I'd be truly grateful.)

Say I am a company exporting a made-entirely-in-the-USA-widget for $1,000, making a $100 profit and having costs of $900. Let's pretend that input costs don't change. With Trump’s proposed 15% marginal corporate tax rate (instead of 35%), I get a take-home pay after taxes of $85 instead of $65. Under the new tax regime, I can lower my sales price by $23.53 (=2.35%) to $976.47 and still make the same $65 after-tax profit as before. Meanwhile, if Fahri et al. are right that the dollar appreciates 20% the product would just have become app 17.2% more expensive in the foreign currency for a constant after-tax dollar profit.

If we add a border adjustment such that I am not taxed on my exports at all, then I can reduce the price of the widget by $35 dollars and still make the same $65 after-tax profit. That would amount to a reduction of 3.5% in the dollar sales price. Meanwhile, if Fahri et al. are right about the 20% appreciation of the dollar, that would make the widget 15.8% more expensive in foreign currency for a constant after-tax dollar profit.

With or without the border adjustment, a 20% appreciation of the dollar would lead to a *loss* of competitiveness and a *fall* in exports at constant post-tax profits. This suggests there is a problem with Fahri et al.'s assertions that a 20 percentage point reduction in the marginal tax rate for corporations i) would lead to a 20% appreciation of the dollar, and that ii) "this, in turn, will offset any competitiveness gains.”

Please explain how this makes sense: If I read it right, the authors argue that a 20 percentage point reduction in the marginal corporate tax rate (from 35% to 15%) constitutes a "20% tax cut [which] will push the value of the dollar up by 20%". Could someone walk me through i) how changing the marginal tax rate for corporations by 20 percentage points while also changing the tax basis would amount to a "20% tax cut". ii) how a "20% tax cut" (presumably meaning a 20% reduction in tax revenue from corporate taxation) results in a 20% appreciation of the dollar.

Countries committed to a floating rate don't have central banks with $4 trillion balance sheets. The problem with Paul Ryan's tax plan is that offering tax exemptions to US suppliers alone is completely equivalent to placing tariffs on imports. And, like tariffs, such one sided tax exemptions tend to destroy world trade.

Congress would be much better off to establish a standard value-added tax to replace a large portion of our income and payroll taxes. Value-added taxes don't have the problems with residency that plague income taxes and are much harder to evade.

And if protectionism is now part of the US agenda then a more sensible place to start would be with the flood of foreign savings that Fed policy has encouraged. There are many possibilities in that area including higher risk ratings for foreign deposits and liabilities in the banking system, higher capital and liquidity ratios, an end to asset price support programs like QE, and new channels of action for the FED that would allow it to bypass financial markets in delivering stimulus to the US economy.

This is excellent. However, one can go further. The BIS reports non-domiciled Firms, banks and governments have $10 trillion in dollar denominated debt. The trade-weighted value of the dollar gas already increased by around 35 percent from its low around five years ago. A further 25 percent increase could lead to significant debt problems as seen in the 80s with Latin America and the late 90s with Asia. The proponents of the tax are playing with fire.

Your premise is based on the assumption that owing to a floating exchange rate the US dollar will appreciate as much as the corporate tax reduction eroding any competitive gains form the reduction in the tax rate. This is very debatable on the one hand and not necessarily permanent on the other. A tax reduction increases long term investment in capital goods which includes investment in export minded companies. Whilst a currency by its mere definition is in constant search of equilibrium. You are thus comparing investment in capital goods and equipment on the one hand with a short term fluctuating price mechanism. Not comparable. Furthermore if I am an international investor who is seeking to manufacture in a particular country I will invest where there is a favourable tax treatment of my investment as well as the prospect of a stable or longer term appreciating currency.

And Brexit wow . The Brits think that they will do okay under WTO rules but imagine if Europe taxes imports from the UK at full rather than added value The entire world will endure a really big shock under this system but the Brits they II get it on steroids

True, as far as it goes. But there are lots of ways to lean against a capital flow that an appreciating dollar will create. Taxes on capital are the obvious measures, but with a Republican administration you're more likely to get monetary measures like higher prudential requirements and lower than expected interest rates; in short, some good old financial repression to support adjustment in the trade account.

Paul Ryan's border adjustments to taxes just brings the US a little closer to the world norm of value-added taxes and closes the incentive to locate operations abroad. It needs support from monetary policy, but there is nothing new about that.

As a basic rule, one must never criticise a plan that has not been devised, not yet agreed or even executed. In the absence of these elements, there can only be sheer speculation. If one is to criticise anything, one must criticise the existing plans, policies, rules and regulations of the incumbent, the ones that have been in force and executed and have destroyed the lives of millions in the US and around the world.

M M ... if find your comment "to never criticize a plan that has not been devised yet" rather, sorry for my lack of finding a less offensive word here, but stupid is the only one hat comes to mind. So with that logic no debate, discussion about a future plan is allowed, until that plan is executed? I am not sure if you work in a business or ever have but i would hope that the executive, management teams of those companies did actually debate and discuss strategies and plans before they were execute upon. Now Trump does not provide much information about his plans but i think it is important to have a debate about their potential consequences. i would even go as far as to say criticize the crap out of a plan but then once you agree on it make sure you give it time to deliver the expected benefits rather than questioning it too soon.

America used to have the wealthiest market in the world's economy. No more. The American consumer has been broken by years of layoffs, wage deflation and credit fueled consumption of cheaply manufactured goods, produced overseas by American firms, or under contract by foreign firms that have no control over price. The result is that the foreign firm controls the quality and that is often so poor that the product won't last beyond first use. That keeps the poor consumer on treadmill, constantly replacing the cheap stuff bought just weeks before.

Thus, it would seem to me that the goal of the border adjustment tax is to reduce the practice of Mercantalism we've engaged in under the the past thirty years. I find it inexcusable that companies should be permitted to put Americans out of work just to juice their profits and ease the pain of unemployment by offering them WalMart as a place to spend their benefits. If they want to produce goods cheaply for consumers in emerging markets, they can do so overseas and sell those products overseas.

If a border adjustment tax keeps the supply chains here at home, and helps provide people with decent jobs, then I am all for it.

The authors totally fail to include the financing of trade deficits. Somebody must finance the trade deficit of the US. If the USD rose 20%, they authors ASSUME (typical economists) that everyone will be willing to invest at a 20% higher price. In reality, the USD would not rise 20%, the relative cost would reduce the trade deficit, and the US would be better off.

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.